It is rare to find myself agreeing with the decisions of this U.S. Supreme Court. This is, after all, the body that ruled backyard gardens are a form of interstate commerce. But two recent rulings are quite sensible.

The first came a week ago when the court issued its decision on Doe vs. Reed. It began in the state of Washington, which had adopted an “everything but marriage” civil partnerships law.

This effort to treat citizens fairly irked other citizens. Washington, like Colorado, allows petitions for initiatives and referenda.

In 2009, the irked citizens collected signatures for Referendum 71, which would have repealed the civil unions law. In the interest of transparency and honesty, Washington requires the signatures to be public record. Certain opponents of the referendum — that is, supporters of the civil unions — said they would use the Internet to make available all public information about the signers. The idea was to encourage “uncomfortable conversations” with them.

Several of the signers sued to keep signatures out of the public record on First Amendment grounds. That is, they feared repercussions for expressing political opinions and exercising their right to petition government. Thus the litigation.

In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held the state has a legitimate interest in keeping public issues public. You’re free to express your opinions in the United States, and you’re also free to express your opinions of people who express opinions you don’t like.

Granted, anonymous and pseudonymous political discourse has some eminent history in America, going back to the 1798 Kentucky Resolution (secretly written by Thomas Jefferson when he was vice president) and the Federalist Papers of 1787-88, (written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, but published under the pen name Publius).

But generally, if you want to state something to the public, especially concerning public policy, you should be willing to put your name on it, as did the signers of the Declaration of Independence, whose anniversary we will celebrate Sunday.

Our nation’s founders were willing to pledge “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” Compare them to the wimps who sued for secrecy. The poor things were frightened not by the prospect of losing their lives or their fortunes, but by the possibility of unpleasant conversations.

Now to the second agreeable ruling, a Second Amendment case that arose because Chicago had an ordinance that effectively outlawed handguns, even if kept in the home.

Otis Armstrong, joined by others, sued because he believed he had a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to defend himself. In the Heller case of 2008, the court held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution limited federal powers to regulate firearms. But that case arose in the District of Columbia, which comes under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The issue this time was whether the states (and their political subdivisions like cities) held such power, or they were also limited, thanks to the 14th Amendment. It says that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The court held 5-4 that under the 14th Amendment, states fall under the Second Amendment, and that’s consistent with the plain text of the Constitution.

As for those who worry that this ruling will cause society to collapse, they should know life isn’t all that bad out here in Gunland, aka rural Colorado, although sometimes we must suffer through unpleasant conversations.